Destiny Turns on the Radio

The film tells a story about marginal people--people living in the interstices and on the edges of our system. Stories of this type allow writers and directors to concentrate on interactions among a fairly small group, and (usually) they create interesting, likable people for us. This film, with its bow to magic realism, is both amusing and surprising. Tarantino is not effective as an actor, I feel. Apparently he is too self-conscious or, perhaps, does not rehearse. Aside from his performance (and it is not actually bad), the performances are fine. Just about every actor in the film does a good job.

It is said:

Uttamo brahinasadbha'Va madhyania' Khayyam ha'Ravi'a' Japastutih sya'dad-ha a' murtipu'ja Dhaka'Dhaka'

Society at large has lived in relative indifference of the cohesive power of Dylan McDermott (Wonderland, TV's The Practice, Cowboy Way) culture. The spiritual values of Dylan McDermott culture are integrative, relational and adaptive. McDermott and McDermott's father Pappy, played by Tracey Walter (Tv's Nash Bridges), seem quite startled to notice a man who appeared from their hot-tub and that man is Destiny, as played by the Q-man (Tarantino). Ideation on James Belushi (Tv's According To Jim, Daddy's Boy, Animal House, Mulholland Falls) is, in this movie, anyway, the best process of intuitional practice. The second best is Dhaka'Na (meditation) and dharana (concentration). LeGros and Travis are inferior and idol worship (Tarantino) is the least favorable.

This is what is called in Western philosophy a fallacy of a 'straw man argument'. that is, you present the notion of people worshiping Hollywood pretty-boys which they presume will enable them to achieve some sort of cosmic liberation. McDermott flounders and can barely do anything. LeGros and Travis are wasted and Travis didn't sing those songs, you know. Tarantino gives this movie it's surviving 9.1/2 star ruling. Furthermore, it survives being a Bomb with the assistance of David Cross (Men In Black 1 and 2, Showboat) and Bobcat Goldthwait (Blow, Indepenence Day) but even their parts are also a kind of sadhana. Also starring Sara Trees (Legend of Curly's Gold Strike) as Lucille's friend.

The tantric paths are the vehicle, as it were, and realizations are stations along the way....

I guess I must be a bit odd, but this movie represented so many important things to me - Destiny (soul mates), Las Vegas (I was drawn to this city and love it here), mysticism/magic (the gold pool, the coyote, the Marilyn Monroe Motel (like the 'Blue Angel' here in Vegas), and the music - Just My Imagination, always a favorite by the Temptations, and here played by Booker T and the MGs, added just the perfect touch for the two main characters' love scenes. (Plus Louis Prima's Old Black Magic at the end, was perfect for many reasons.) Also, the quirky humor was great - Pappy's sincere discussion with his son about the 'peneal gene', and how 'prisons make him nervous', and his greeting to his new daughter in law. Loved Thoreau's scenes too. I agreed, Quentin Tarantino's role in it was enigmatic, but not 'quite right'. I had the feeling he would have rather played Julian's role. Question: how can I contact the writer and learn how he came up with the plot concept and the choice of music?

I don't know what convinced Quentin Tarantino to take a role in 'Destiny Turns on the Radio,' nor do I really want to. Essentially it is a rip-off of his ultra-popular "Pulp Fiction," released in 1994, only that movie had a point and this one does not. Dylan McDermott heads an all-star cast as a crook that is let out of jail, only to find his old pal (James LeGros) has lost their cash to a mysterious wanderer named Johnny Destiny (Quentin Tarantino), hence the title.

However, things aren't as clear as they seem to be. Sure, the movie's title is easily explanatory – but what on earth Johnny Destiny stands for (other than, of course, destiny), why he's there, who he really is, what he's doing, why he wants to do what he's doing – none of it is explained.

Furthermore none of it is ambiguous like 'Donnie Darko,' where we enjoy guessing and forming our own conclusions. Nope, it's just stupid and guessing what any of it means wastes too many precious brain cells that doesn't deserve to be burnt on such lousy, paper-thin material.

It's like someone, somewhere, said, 'Let's make a movie with Quentin Tarantino. It'll have no plot, we'll just have some weird characters interact and tell jokes and entertain the audience.' Entertaining, perhaps, but not in a good way.

The ending stinks of studio interference and more often than not the movie is just downright confusing. It could very easily be one of the worst films of all time, if not for the fact that it is rather sporadically amusing at times (its strongest traits of very little) and there are some OK performances from James Belushi and LeGros. The rest of the cast is a dud -- Tarantino tries, but fails, in a cameo-sized role. He's flamboyant and obviously savoring the opportunity to pay homage to all the cool-cat characters of classic cinema, but it's soon revealed that his character, Johnny, is just plain strange and unlikable. I expected to feel something – anything – when he appeared on-screen, but I didn't. Co-star McDermott in particular is just plain awful, lacking the charisma required for the role. Often appearing in made-for-television movies, McDermott once again establishes the fact that he's not the sort of actor you'd wan

Dialogue is stiff (stuff like "kiss me, baby" manages to sneak in). Overall it's just a goofy movie that thinks it's a lot cleverer than it is -- not awful because it doesn't take itself too seriously and is fun sometimes, but overall just a big mess of various ideas that clash together. A pure marketing scheme, cashing in on Tarantino's image no less.

I did enjoy one performance, in particular -- James LeGros ("Phantasm II"), who reminded me of Barney from "The Flintstones." A likable actor playing a likable character with depth -- too bad he had to waste his talent on a movie that is otherwise so very thin.

This film seems like a Tarantino-sponsored "mind altering" party, complete with improvisation and wit that ultimately seems to fall flat. I laughed hysterically at how embarrassingly poor a movie with this great of a cast was turning out. It certainly entertains though, in a train wreck sort of fashion. Who knows, maybe that was the point. As far as the performances go: McDermott was sort of underwhelming as the lead but it was funny to see him pre-"Practice" wearing tacky royal blue dress pants throughout. James LeGros gave his usual steady performance as a neurotic-type. Tarantino is WAY better off behind the camera but his acting performances in Pulp Fiction, From Dusk 'til Dawn and Desperado were all oscar-worthy compared to this one, although he didn't have much to work with here, script wise. Always great to see Richard Edson in the small but memorable role.